Everything that was posted is very concerning, but to me stops short of scamming. Rather, i'd like to use the word scummy instead since Dan associates with prom.
Thanks for you input. I'm curious, would you consider Dan doing a "code review" of Hal's anon code while giving the impression that he was an unbiased third party scammy or scummy?
As references, here is the skype screenshot (
http://imgur.com/a/1xbWq#2) and here is the code review (
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=741728.msg8723167;topicseen#msg8723167)
Are you serious with this? Is there some sort of "XC community guide to not addressing the actual issues and deflecting arguments" written by Synechist? Why do you pick out only parts of statements and address them as if none of the other text exists?
And you sidestep every single point on the list there. Congrats. Maybe XC should hire you as Synechist's assistant in the propaganda department.
Or if you're trolling though, then hats off I guess. At this point it's getting a bit ridiculous. You keep saying there's no evidence despite the fact that I just posted evidence which you conveniently left out of your reply.
Yeah, adhitthana also conveniently ignored the part of my post in which I linked the specific skype screenshot where Prom said that Dan "was the anon dev for HAL". (
http://imgur.com/a/1xbWq#2)
And this is after he kept saying that some of the things Prom says can be interpreted different ways. So I linked this for him and asked him what he thought of it, but he has ignored it since.
I agree with you, at this point I think adhitthana might just be trolling all over the place.
My conclusion after trying to converse and reason with some XC/Blocknet supporters is that there are 3 possibilities:
1. They refuse to look at the details and question them because they are afraid of what it may mean for their investment
2. They have looked at the details, but are really that naive and do not understand the implications of the information that have come to light
3. They have looked at the details and understand the implications, but do not care that the people behind it are unethical (i.e. knowingly supporting the scam)